Karnataka Court March 1994 Judgments
idl Chemicals Ltd. and Another Vs. Astra Pharmaceuticals Ab and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1994
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas649(Kar); ILR1994KAR1699; 1994(3)KarLJ493
R. Ramakrishna, J.1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the trial court. They have filed a suit against the respondents for the relief of a declaration that the respondents are bound to act in accordance with the terms of the joint venture agreement, the shareholders' agreement and the articles of association of the second respondent company and for further declaration that the proceedings of the board of the second respondent company held on February 1, 1994, after the resignation of the fourth respondent as chairman are null and void and for a further declaration that the appointment of the third respondent as chairman is illegal, void and nonest and consequent reliefs of issue of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction restraining the directors of the second respondent company to implement the resolution as it relates to the appointment of the chairman in the meeting held on February 1, 1994, and for a mandatory injunction. 2. The appellants have filed three interlocutory ap...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Kalakapur Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)ALT(Cri)640; 1994CriLJ2696; ILR1994KAR1175; 1994(2)KarLJ505
1. In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment dated 21-11-1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Karawar, Uttara Kannada, in S.C. No. 3/1989, convicting him for an offence under S. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The appellant is a public servant and was working as a school teacher in the Industrial Training Institute (Women), Kasbaga, Belgaum. He was appointed as a Supervisor and Examiner to conduct annual practical examination of the students of electrical branch, Industrial Training Institute of Nandangadda, Karawar. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the appellant being a public servant, demanded money in cash on 22-7-1988 and 25-7-1988 and accepted the same on 26-7-1988 from the students who were about to appear for practical examination of which the appellant was in charge...
Tag this Judgment!G.S. Virupakshappa Vs. Sri Hanumantha and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant378; ILR1994KAR1270; 1995(2)KarLJ355
ORDER1. Respondent No. 1 filed an application as contemplated under S. 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Alienation of Certain Lands) Act, 1979. The Assistant Commissioner who enquired into the matter rejected the application filed by the first respondent. Aggrieved by that order he preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner who also dismissed his application. Thereafter the first respondent preferred a petition to this Court in W.P. No. 10934/88. This Court allowed the petition after recording the following findings: that certain lands had been granted to the first respondent pursuant to an order made as per Annexure A in the writ petition dated 16-2-1967 of 78 acres 5 guntas in Sy. No. 1 of Jarakabande Kaval in favour of 43 persons including the first respondent; that the order at Annexure-'A' discloses that the same was made in relaxation of R. 42 and in exercise of powers vested under R. 43(L) of Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules 1960; tha...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Shenoy Vs. Disciplinary Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1550; 1994(2)KarLJ490
ORDERMohan Kumar, J.1. The petitioner challenges Annexure-K Order passed by the 1st respondent. Certain irregularities were alleged against the petitioner and with respect to which Annexure-G charge-sheet was framed. By Annexure-H Order dated 16-7-1993, the 2nd respondent was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. On receipt of annexure-H, the petitioner submitted Annexure-J petition on 10-8-1993 before the 1st respondent making, inter alia, the following requests : (i) That the 2nd respondent is an Officer of the same Grade and junior to the petitioner and as such it is not fair to appoint him as an Enquiry Officer. (ii) That since the question involved raises questions of law, he may be permitted to engage an Advocate to represent him. These requests were rejected by the 1st respondent by virtue of Annexure-K Order. 2. The petitioner impugns Annexure-K Order mainly on the following grounds : (i) Since the 2nd respondent is an Officer junior to the petitioner, there will be an inherent bia...
Tag this Judgment!Sujatha Vs. Jose Augustine
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-1994
Reported in: II(1994)DMC442
T.V. Ramakrishnan, J.1. Original Petition is one filed under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act') for a decree declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent as null and void. Petitioner is the wife and first respondent is the husband. Second respondent is the father of the first respondent.2. Petitioner was born as a Hindu belonging to Nair community. First respondent belongs to Latin Catholic Community and is employed as a Conductor in a private bus. According to the petitioner, she met the first respondent during her bus journeys to and from her college at Ernakulam where she has joined as a student for pre-degree course. The acquaintance soon became very close as a result of daily meetings. It is her case that first respondent enticed her, exploited her innocence and procured her love fraudulently. While so, it is her further case that in 1989 petitioner who was doing her second year pre-degree course, was coerced to execute an ag...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner Vs. Bhima Shiddappa Naik
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1644
Hakeem, J.1. Certain extent of land comprised in various Sy.Nos. situated in Biranal and Byakud villages of Raibag Taluk were acquired for the construction of an irrigation tank under Preliminary Notification published on 11.10.1973.2. As against the Land Acquisition Officer's award dated 31.3.77 at the rate of Rs. 840/- per acre, the Reference Court has fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 4,000/- per acre, in addition to awarding statutory benefits. The State being aggrieved by the enhancement has preferred this Appeal.3. A preliminary objection regarding the question of limitation arises in this case. It is not disputed that an application under Section 18 for referring the award to the Court for adjudication of the market value was filed before the Land Acquisition Officer within a period of 3 months i.e., on 18.5.77. Admittedly, no Reference having been made, the claimant made an application on 28.6.86 under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking direction for a...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Satish and Others Vs. the Bangalore University and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Kant379; ILR1994KAR1191; 1994(2)KarLJ543
ORDER1. In all these petitions, the petitioners are students of National College, Jayanagar, Bangalore (Second Respondent), who have not been permitted to take the examinations for want of required attendance. They seek a direction to respondents to permit them to take their annual examination to be held in April/May, 1994.2. Petitioners contend that the college notified a just of about 230 students of B.Sc., B.A. and B.Com. courses, who were not eligible to take the annual examination to be held in April-May, 1994, for want of minimum attendance; that thereafter the Attendance Committee constituted by the College considered the cases of such students and excused the shortage in attendance of about ! 80 students and that only about 50 students including the petitioners were still found to be ineligible for want of attendance. The grievance of the petitioners is that while in the case of several students, similarly placed, shortage in attendance was excused, it was not done so in their ...
Tag this Judgment!Veneer Mills Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1533; 1995(1)KarLJ607
Rajendra Babu, J.1. This batch of Cases have been filed by importers of timber challenging the levy of inspection fee on plants imported into India on the ground that levies under Clause 3(12) and Clause 12 of the Plants, Fruits and Seeds (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 1989 read with Section 3 of the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914, is not applicable to commercial timber logs imported into India.2. For purpose of convenience, we will take up the first batch of Cases in WP Nos. 700 to 702/1990 and dispose them of and following this Decision, we shall make separate orders in each of the other Cases although the matters have been heard together.3. At the time of filing of the Petitions, the petitioners had challenged the validity of the inspection fee on the ground that the same was not authorised under Section 3 of the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914 ('Act' for short). The said Act was amended during pendency of these proceedings by Act 12 of 1992. By that amend...
Tag this Judgment!Pathange Poultry Farm Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1994
Reported in: (1995)123CTR(Kar)598; ILR1994KAR2138; [1994]210ITR668(KAR); [1994]210ITR668(Karn); 1995(39)KarLJ74
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, has referred to us the following two questions for our opinion in terms of section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant was not entitled to depreciation at 100 per cent. on the cages whose individual cost was less than Rs. 750 on the ground that the cages had been fabricated into one unit and thereby lost its individuality (2) Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal was right in holding that each cage was not a plant by itself and accordingly the applicant was not entitled to depreciation at 100 per cent. when the cost of each of the cages was less than Rs. 750 ?' 2. Before we address ourselves to the legal position on the subject, a few facts relevant to the disposal of this reference may first be noticed 3. The assessee is carrying on the business of running a poultry farm. 4. It has, for that purpose, raised sheds and ins...
Tag this Judgment!V. Verghese and Another Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and Anot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2185
S. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The second petitioner is a partnership firm of which the first petitioner is a partner. Both the petitioners are producers of films in Kannada. 2. During the assessment year 1986-87, the second petitioner produced a feature film. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that as far as the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18136 of 1989 is concerned, the Income-tax Officer accepted the method of accounting and computed the income or loss of that petitioner on the basis of the accounts maintained by him. It is stated that for the first time, for the assessment year 1984-85, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax computed the first petitioner's income by application of rule 9A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), which was framed in exercise of the powers vested in the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 295 of the Income-tax Act, 196 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as per the assessment order annexure 'A'. 4. According...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »